ISIS being thrashed in Mosul. 100,000 civilians still in the Old City: we can have no idea how many civilian deaths.

Indeed. What little news is allowed out about the suffering of civilians makes it clear that what is being done to the people of Mosul is one of the great 21st century atrocities, far worse than the more publicized suffering of Aleppo.

A very prolonged thrashing that has gone both ways. That ISIS has managed to hang on in Mosul for so long, with every hand against them, is one of the great military feats, whatever one thinks of those bastards.

Indeed. What little news is allowed out about the suffering of civilians makes it clear that what is being done to the people of Mosul is one of the great 21st century atrocities, far worse than the more publicized suffering of Aleppo.

A very prolonged thrashing that has gone both ways. That ISIS has managed to hang on in Mosul for so long, with every hand against them, is one of the great military feats, whatever one thinks of those bastards.

-AMH-

Well, not really. They had in theory a strong position - you were among those claiming they had massive support from the local population - and they were dug in in a dense urban area, which they had controlled long enough to fortify, build tunnels, booby trap etc. And they were using the local population as 'human shields'. It looks to me like an ignominious collapse. They blew up the Great Mosque in a fit of sulks. A suicide bomber blew up a meeting of ISIS leaders yesterday. They now only have a few hundred men left in 1 k square.

"If you go far enough to either extreme of the political spectrum, Communist or fascist, you'll find hard-eyed men with guns who believe that anybody who doesn't think as they do should be incarcerated or exterminated. " - Jim Garrison, Former DA, New Orleans.

Like many anarchists from Frisco, the Rolling Stone's hero of the month is a bit, well, naive... Should have stuck to his previous "lumpenproletarian Leninism," then he wouldn't be an anarcho-footsoldier for Donald Trump.

Well, not really. They had in theory a strong position - you were among those claiming they had massive support from the local population - and they were dug in in a dense urban area, which they had controlled long enough to fortify, build tunnels, booby trap etc. And they were using the local population as 'human shields'. It looks to me like an ignominious collapse. They blew up the Great Mosque in a fit of sulks. A suicide bomber blew up a meeting of ISIS leaders yesterday. They now only have a few hundred men left in 1 k square.

How many civilians do you think have been killed, and by whom ? What is your source for your comparison with Aleppo ?

I don't know how many civilians have been killed, have no way of finding out how, and I suspect nobody else will be able to, that is not info the powers that be want out there. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees. How many actually killed? Hard to say, but it's pretty clear that the US and its lackeys have killed far more people than ISIS. The single incident that made the papers with hundreds of refugees killed by the US in one bombing that made it out of the press blackout is surely just the tip of the iceberg.

Source of comparison with Aleppo? Pretty obvious. In both cases, death from the skies. Main technique barrel bombs with Aleppo, seems like white phosphorus was a biggie with the US.

As for this "human shield" business, that is the standard trope used by imperial forces to justify "collateral damage" slaughtering the colonials. I do not recall any cases of ISIS tying civilians up in barbed wire and dragging them in front of their military positions as human shields, which is what that would mean if it were anything other than US imperial propaganda. Did ISIS shoot civilians too? No doubt, they are a pretty unpleasant bunch, but hardly on the scale of what the US and its lackeys have done in Mosul.

This is, or anyway used to be, a densely occupied city. For the bombers to blame the civilian victims of their bombing on the defenders is obscene.

I don't know how many civilians have been killed, have no way of finding out how, and I suspect nobody else will be able to, that is not info the powers that be want out there. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees. How many actually killed? Hard to say, but it's pretty clear that the US and its lackeys have killed far more people than ISIS. The single incident that made the papers with hundreds of refugees killed by the US in one bombing that made it out of the press blackout is surely just the tip of the iceberg.

Source of comparison with Aleppo? Pretty obvious. In both cases, death from the skies. Main technique barrel bombs with Aleppo, seems like white phosphorus was a biggie with the US.

As for this "human shield" business, that is the standard trope used by imperial forces to justify "collateral damage" slaughtering the colonials. I do not recall any cases of ISIS tying civilians up in barbed wire and dragging them in front of their military positions as human shields, which is what that would mean if it were anything other than US imperial propaganda. Did ISIS shoot civilians too? No doubt, they are a pretty unpleasant bunch, but hardly on the scale of what the US and its lackeys have done in Mosul.

This is, or anyway used to be, a densely occupied city. For the bombers to blame the civilian victims of their bombing on the defenders is obscene.

-AMH-

Lets get this straight. ISIS are in your view the defenders of Mosul ?

Who were they defending ? Themselves ?

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

Anyone would think the Protestant Reformation was a uniformly progressive movement.It abolished a lot of corrupt practices in the RCC. But it also impoverished millions of people , with the dissolution of monasteries and alms houses.It also led to the destruction of lots of lovely ( idolatrous) art a la Isis in Iraq and Syria. People often say Islam needs a Reformation. Has anyone ever considered : maybe this is it?

That's an interesting question. The Protestant Reformation involved destruction as you say of feudal relations in which people had some responsibility for each other and enabling market capitalism. It removed rights and laws that held back capitalism, and progressive capitalism led to much improved living standards overall. In the same way as feudalism led to improvements over tribal society, which it replaced. But ISIS on the other hand seems to disintegrate societies without any new form coming about that creates better living conditions. On the contrary.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

The leaked cable that exposed a CIA/Blackwater man as working on Syrian regime change in 2011-2012 (after having been present at the killing of Gaddhafi) also mentions US contractors Booz Hamilton as being at the same game. Income of over 4 billion a year and packed with assets. Snowden, interestingly, is a former Booz Hamilton employee.

But while looking for it, found a reference to Hugh Wilford's book "America's Great Game" which looks like a fascinating read and which tracks CIA interference in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East back to the 1950s.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

Lets get this straight. ISIS are in your view the defenders of Mosul ?

Who were they defending ? Themselves ?

Ahuh. You may have noticed that for over six months, Iraqi Shi'ite and Kurdish forces backed up by US bombers were attacking Mosul, devastating the place, turning it into rubble, driving hundreds of thousands of refugees out and killing an unknown but large part of the civilian population.

And who was defending Mosul from the assault? If it wasn't ISIS, just who was it? Santa Claus? The Easter bunny?

Ahuh. You may have noticed that for over six months, Iraqi Shi'ite and Kurdish forces backed up by US bombers were attacking Mosul, devastating the place, turning it into rubble, driving hundreds of thousands of refugees out and killing an unknown but large part of the civilian population.

And who was defending Mosul from the assault? If it wasn't ISIS, just who was it? Santa Claus? The Easter bunny?

-AMH-

As you know quite well, ISIS is entirely complicit with this atrocity, which is another Imperialist push at carving up Iraq on sectarian lines.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

As you know quite well, ISIS is entirely complicit with this atrocity, which is another Imperialist push at carving up Iraq on sectarian lines.

ISIS has committed innumerable atrocities. But this is one they hardly can be blamed for. The absolute last thing ISIS wanted was the obliteration of their Mosul stronghold.

And the purpose of the destruction of Mosul is/was the destruction of ISIS. What that has to do with imperial divide and rule I fail to see. In a feeble attempt to prevent the divisiveness from getting totally out of hand, the sectarian murderous Shi'ite militias, which increasingly are the main military vehicle of the Iraqi regime, were kept out of Mosul. So Sunni hatred for what was done to Mosul actually just might go where it belongs, to American death from the skies and the regime, rather than vs. their Shi'ite brethren. Perhaps reducing divisiveness slightly.

ISIS has committed innumerable atrocities. But this is one they hardly can be blamed for. The absolute last thing ISIS wanted was the obliteration of their Mosul stronghold.

And the purpose of the destruction of Mosul is/was the destruction of ISIS. What that has to do with imperial divide and rule I fail to see. In a feeble attempt to prevent the divisiveness from getting totally out of hand, the sectarian murderous Shi'ite militias, which increasingly are the main military vehicle of the Iraqi regime, were kept out of Mosul. So Sunni hatred for what was done to Mosul actually just might go where it belongs, to American death from the skies and the regime, rather than vs. their Shi'ite brethren. Perhaps reducing divisiveness slightly.

-AMH-

The Spartacists do not echo my feeble attempt to scope out some silver lining, however threadbare, in the incredible imperial atrocity that US imperialism has inflicted on Mosul. The crimes of ISIS pale so incredibly by comparison that even mentioning them in the context of Mosul is almost obscene. Here is the awful truth.

The Spartacists do not echo my feeble attempt to scope out some silver lining, however threadbare, in the incredible imperial atrocity that US imperialism has inflicted on Mosul. The crimes of ISIS pale so incredibly by comparison that even mentioning them in the context of Mosul is almost obscene. Here is the awful truth.

More recently, the U.S. enlisted the Iraqi government, Shia militias and the pesh merga in its war against the Sunni-fundamentalist ISIS. The ISIS reactionaries are a direct product of U.S. imperialist machinations. ISIS is a split off from Al Qaeda, which itself grew out of Washington’s funding of the mujahedin who fought a reactionary war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In Iraq, ISIS also drew in support from Ba’athist intelligence and military officers purged by the U.S. after Hussein’s overthrow. After occupying Mosul in June 2014, ISIS slaughtered or forcibly expelled Shias and other “infidels.” With the leveling of Mosul and the flight of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs, the stage is now set for further acts of “ethnic cleansing” by Shia death squads.

Do you agree with the above, quoted from the Spartacist article ? You have disputed it here, day in day out. And if it is true that ISIS is a creature of US Imperialism, how come the supposedly left Sparticists support it ? It is a nonsensical political position. Just because the US is prepared to dispose of patsies (nothing new there) does not make ISIS any less a reactionary force serving imperialist ends.

And why not refer to "ISIS death squads" ? ISIS fighters have been thrown off roofs by uniformed Iraqi troops, not murky "death squads". An echo of the many murders by ISIS by the same means of people accused of homosexuality, or petty crime, or political opposition. Slaughter of prisoners is in fact a commonplace of warfare, only denied in war romances and pro Imperialist hokum. ISIS gunned down thousands of Iraqi soldiers and issued celebratory videos.

The aim has always been to carve up the Middle East and destroy non sectarian states. For the Sparticists to support ISIS, the most divisive of the lot, and by their own admission a force created by the US, shows where they stand in terms of imperialism - right alongside it.

The Spartacists have prematurely written of Iraq. It is still standing, in spite of the criminal destruction of Mosul by ISIS and the US.

Last edited by C. Flower; 29-07-2017 at 03:41 PM.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

A bit better informed about the state of Iraqi nationhood and politics than the Spartacists -

But the crossing by US forces into al-Hasaka is an illegal act. However, it may become legal the day Kurdistan Iraq declares its independence followed by the Syrian Kurds independence in al-Hasaka. When the US officially recognises these two “states” (it has happened before in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia in the 90s), the US military presence in Syria becomes “official”. Actually the geographical location of Kurdistan Iraq makes sense when linked, under one nation, with Kurdistan Syria, even if both countries may not end up with a unified leadership due to their different ideology and objectives.

When Thomas Friedman wrote that the US should not fight ISIS because “its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria – plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies – and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate”, he was sharing a truthful moment: ISIS serves the interest of the United States of America. Friedman is in harmony with what the then US vice President Joe Biden wrote that “the idea is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralising it, giving each ethno-religious group – Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab – room to run its own affairs (..) a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American Forces, and a regional nonaggression pact”.
In fact Premier Abadi (according to high-level sources in Baghdad) believes he will have the opportunity to create a balance within this already chaotic situation between Baghdad and Tehran by kicking out the US forces if Washington decides to divide Iraq. The alternative possibility is that Abadi will both justify and support the US military bases in Mesopotamia provided that Trump rejects the idea of splitting Iraq.

But Iran may not react immediately against the US plans to divide Iraq and Syria: the priority goes to defeating ISIS and the US proxies in al-Badiya (the Syrian semi-desert steppe) and to preventing the Kurds from reaching Deir al-Zour, al Mayadeen and south of Tabqah. The US is trying to establish with Russia more de-conflict zones in the north east, similar to the south, but these may only observe a temporary agreement. The “axis of the resistance” will never accept the presence of US troops in both Syria and Iraq, and it will support the Syrian tribes in the north to engage against the US proxies in the north and the south- east of Syria.

In Iraq, many voices are being raised against the US presence in the country, particularly following the defeat of ISIS in Mosul. Many Iraqi leaders are asking the Prime Minister to seek a total and immediate withdrawal of the US forces from Mesopotamia, especially as ISIS managed to proliferate in a sectarian setup, (encouraged by the US) which was absent before 2003. The battle of Mosul is over but the war to eliminate ISIS is still to be fought for another year in al-Anbar province and mainly around al-Qaem where ISIS is well established since 2003. To win this battle, Iraq needs to use the PMU (Hashd) and remove the US veto on these forces.

ISIS recruitment is in free fall: the “capital of the Caliphate” (Mosul) and the main base in Syria (Raqqah) are no longer available to receive new Mujahedeen in their “dream land”. The Islamic Golden age is no longer a reality for this group and its sympathisers around the globe. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that ISIS will become a group (like al-Qaeda) with no particular home to go to (but several caves to hide in).
The US plans in Syria and Iraq have another enemy: Turkey. Washington has prevented Ankara from taking part of the battle of Raqqah and is about to establish two Kurdish “states” on its borders, inviting the Kurds in Turkey to follow the same path.
The question remains: how can new Kurdistan states” survive with four countries surrounding it (Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran), all determined to do everything to neutralise a future Kurdish state in Mesopotamia and/or Bilad al-Sham? The Kurds really believe they can rely on two US and one British military bases in Kurdistan Iraq and on Saudi Arabia monies, and on six US military bases in the north of Syria to impose their “state”?
Changing the map of the Middle East may not be impossible, but sustaining it is another issue. The US is gathering more enemies in Iraq and Syria and its new friends in Iraq and Syria are less capable than its enemies to fulfil this ambitious plan with a US administration whose President is very concerned about keeping his own political head on his shoulders due to the internal attacks he is continuously facing. One thing is certain, this instability is not expected to end with the defeat of ISIS: it will be the beginning of another kind of instability, triggered by both states (US, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey) and by non-state groups (ISIS and al-Qaeda).

Do you agree with the above, quoted from the Spartacist article ? You have disputed it here, day in day out. And if it is true that ISIS is a creature of US Imperialism, how come the supposedly left Sparticists support it ? It is a nonsensical political position. Just because the US is prepared to dispose of patsies (nothing new there) does not make ISIS any less a reactionary force serving imperialist ends.

And why not refer to "ISIS death squads" ? ISIS fighters have been thrown off roofs by uniformed Iraqi troops, not murky "death squads". An echo of the many murders by ISIS by the same means of people accused of homosexuality, or petty crime, or political opposition. Slaughter of prisoners is in fact a commonplace of warfare, only denied in war romances and pro Imperialist hokum. ISIS gunned down thousands of Iraqi soldiers and issued celebratory videos.

The aim has always been to carve up the Middle East and destroy non sectarian states. For the Sparticists to support ISIS, the most divisive of the lot, and by their own admission a force created by the US, shows where they stand in terms of imperialism - right alongside it.

The Spartacists have prematurely written of Iraq. It is still standing, in spite of the criminal destruction of Mosul by ISIS and the US.

A misreading of the Spartacist statement, with which I do agree, and which I do not believe my postings have contradicted in any serious way. I do prefer to do my own thinking and not simply be a megaphone for anyone else, the Spartacists included.

Are ISIS and Al Q'aida the product of imperialist machinations? Yes. Are they as you put it "creatures" and "patsies" of US imperialism? Not at all. The excellent analogy they like to use is that the relationship of ISIS & AQ to US imperialism is the relationship of Frankenstein to Frankenstein's monster.

Nor is this some peculiar concept of theirs. The term generally used for this phenomenon, with which you are quite familiar, is "blowback."

That the Shi'ite militias, especially the notorious Badr brigades, get characterized as "death squads" is also hardly a unique thing. This originated more than a decade ago from their notorious practice of dragging random Sunni civilians off the street and torturing them to death with power drills. Secretively, in the manner of the Latin American death squads often trained by the CIA. (And yes, I have no doubt the CIA was involved here, but I do not believe either the practice or CIA encouragement of it was limited to the Badr brigades).

The atrocities of ISIS are innumerable, but different in nature, public rather than secretive, and better described by other epithets. ISIS prefers simply killing its victims rather than torturing them to death first, its favorite method for sectarian killings being suicide bombings. (The blowtorch murder of the Jordanian pilot being the only exception I know of, and the exception that in many ways proves the rule).

As for the Iraqi state, as they point out Iraq as a state is and from its inception has been every bit as much an imperialist creation as ISIS or AQ. The Iraqi Revolution of 1958 attempted to turn it into something else-but failed. Before and after 1958 (except very briefly), Iraq was a thoroughly sectarian state, but more on national than religious lines. Until 1958, Iraq was a reliable imperial tool, part of CENTO, the prime vehicle for US control of the Middle East, which was even headquartered in Baghdad.

-AMH-

PS: you would do well to avoid the "Sparticist" misspelling, as it is the one invariably used by the FBI in secret FBI files. If it is not just a simple typo and you picked it up from somewhere else, said source is shall we say dubious.